Право
Навигация
Реклама
Ресурсы в тему
Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

Новые документы

Законодательство Российской Федерации

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 02.03.1987 МАТЬЕ-МОЭН (MATHIEU-MOHIN) И КЛЕРФЕЙТ (CLERFAYT) ПРОТИВ БЕЛЬГИИ [РУС. (ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ), АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                                               [неофициальный перевод]
   
                  ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СУД ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
                                   
                           СУДЕБНОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ
           МАТЬЕ-МОЭН (MATHIEU-MOHIN) И КЛЕРФЕЙТ (CLERFAYT)
                            ПРОТИВ БЕЛЬГИИ
                                   
                    (Страсбург, 2 марта 1987 года)
   
                             (Извлечение)
   
          КРАТКОЕ НЕОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ ДЕЛА
   
                           А. Основные факты
   
       Заявители  -  г-жа  Люсьен  Матье-Моэн  и  г-н  Жорж   Клерфейт
   проживали   в   коммунах  административного  округа   Аль-Вильворд,
   который  входил  в двуязычный брюссельский регион  и  избирательный
   округ  Брюсселя. На прямых парламентских выборах в конце  70-х  гг.
   они  были избраны в нем соответственно в Палату представителей  (г-
   жа Матье-Моэн) и Сенат (г-н Клерфейт).
       В  рассматриваемый  период времени Бельгия  была  разделена  на
   лингвистической  основе  на  несколько  регионов,  делами   которых
   ведали  региональные советы, в состав которых входили  члены  обеих
   палат   парламента,   избранные  в   соответствующих   округах   (в
   двуязычном  брюссельском  регионе  было  создано  два  Совета).   В
   административном  округе, где были избраны  заявители,  большинство
   составляло  фламандское  население,  и  он  относился   к   ведению
   Фламандского совета. Однако заявители не смогли войти в  него,  так
   как   принесли  парламентскую  присягу  на  французском   языке   и
   соответственно  входят во франкоязычные, а не  фламандские  фракции
   палат.
   
           B. Разбирательство в Комиссии по правам человека
   
       В  жалобе,  поданной  12  июля 1983 г.  в  Комиссию,  заявители
   утверждали, что они явились жертвами дискриминации, причем  двояким
   образом,  и  как  избиратели,  и  как  избранные  парламентарии  по
   сравнению   с  проживающими  в  тех  же  коммунах  избирателями   и
   избранными   представителями,  говорящими  на  фламандском   языке.
   Жалоба признана частично приемлемой 5 февраля 1981 г. В докладе  от
   15 марта 1985 г. Комиссия пришла к выводу, что:
       i)  имеет  место нарушение статьи 3 Протокола N 1  в  отношении
   прав заявителей как избирателей (десятью голосами против одного);
       ii)  нет необходимости рассматривать дело с точки зрения статьи
   14   Конвенции   или  выяснять,  имело  ли  место  нарушение   прав
   заявителей как избранных представителей.
       11 июля 1985 г. Комиссия передала дело в Суд.
   
                    ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ИЗ СУДЕБНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ
   
                             ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
   
                I. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 3
                    Протокола N 1, взятой отдельно
   
       44.  Заявители обжаловали статью 29 з 1 Специального закона  от
   1980  г.,  на  основании которой определяется  состав  Фламандского
   совета,  по двум основаниям. Прежде всего они утверждали,  что  эта
   статья  лишает  практической возможности франкоязычных  избирателей
   административного  округа  Аль-Вильворд  -  он  входит   в   состав
   территории  фламандского  региона,  но  образует  при  этом  единый
   избирательный округ с двуязычным административным округом  Брюсселя
   -  иметь своих представителей во Фламандском совете, в то время как
   избиратели,  говорящие на фламандском языке, таковых имеют.  Далее,
   статья  лишает возможности работать во Фламандском совете  и  самих
   парламентариев,   избранных  в  данном   избирательном   округе   и
   проживающих  в  одной  из  коммун  административного  округа   Аль-
   Вильворд,  но  принадлежащих  к франкоязычной  фракции  Палаты  или
   Сената.  При  этом  депутаты, входящие в  состав  фламандскоязычной
   фракции и проживающие в одной из коммун вышеупомянутого округа,  не
   сталкиваются с подобной проблемой.
       По  мнению г-жи Матье-Моэн и г-на Клерфейта, подобная  ситуация
   является нарушением статьи 3 Протокола N 1, на основании которой:
       "Высокие   Договаривающиеся  Стороны  обязуются   проводить   с
   разумной  периодичностью свободные выборы путем тайного голосования
   в  таких условиях, которые обеспечивали бы свободное волеизъявление
   народа при выборе законодательной власти".
       45.   Комиссия  в  целом  согласна  с  аргументами  заявителей.
   Правительство    же   их   оспаривает.   Оно   подчеркивает,    что
   франкоязычный   депутат   от   избирательного   округа    Брюсселя,
   проживающий  в  административном округе Аль-Вильворд,  может  стать
   членом  Фламандского совета и представлять в нем своих избирателей,
   если  он  принесет  присягу  на  фламандском  языке.  Помимо  этого
   Правительство  настаивает  на переходном  характере  той  ситуации,
   которая явилась предметом иска (п. 14, 21, 24, 28 и 29 выше).
   
                 A. Толкование статьи 3 Протокола N 1
   
       46.  Поскольку  Суду  впервые приходится  выносить  решение  по
   жалобе,   относящейся  к  статье  3  Протокола  N  1,  он   считает
   необходимым уточнить в рамках данного спора тот смысл,  который  он
   придает данной статье.
       47.  В  преамбуле Конвенции говорится, что соблюдение  основных
   свобод  зависит  "главным  образом... от  подлинно  демократической
   системы". Поскольку в статье 3 Протокола N 1 закрепляется  принцип,
   характеризующий  такую  систему, то в  структуре  Конвенции  статья
   приобретает основополагающее значение.
       48.  Почти  во  всех  других нормативных  статьях  Конвенции  и
   Протоколов  N  1,  4,  6 и 7 используются выражения  "каждый  имеет
   право"  или  "никто  не  может",  в статье  3  говорится:  "Высокие
   Договаривающиеся  Стороны  обязуются".  Иногда  из  этого   делался
   вывод,  что  статья  не  порождает прав и свобод,  "непосредственно
   признаваемых за каждым", кто находится под юрисдикцией этих  Сторон
   (см.  Решение  по делу Ирландия против Соединенного Королевства  от
   18  января  1978 г. Серия A, т. 25, с. 91, п. 239), а создает  лишь
   обязательства между государствами.
       В  подобном случае г-жа Матье-Моэн и г-н Клерфейт не  имели  бы
   права  обратиться  в  Комиссию: на основании  статьи  25  Конвенции
   жалобу  может  направить  лишь  то лицо,  которое  утверждает,  что
   явилось жертвой нарушения каких-либо своих прав и свобод.
       49. Столь ограничительное толкование не выдерживает критики. Из
   преамбулы   Протокола  N  1  следует,  что  в  нем   обеспечивается
   коллективное  осуществление некоторых иных  прав  и  свобод  помимо
   тех,  которые  уже  включены в раздел I Конвенции;  более  того,  в
   статье   5  Протокола  уточняется,  что  "Высокие  Договаривающиеся
   Стороны  рассматривают  положения  статей  1,  2,  3  и  4...   как
   дополнительные  статьи  к  Конвенции",  "все  положения   которой",
   включая  статью  25,  "применяются  соответственно".  Кроме   того,
   преамбула  Протокола  N  4, говоря о "правах  человека  и  основных
   свободах", упоминает статьи 1 - 3 первого Протокола к Конвенции.
       В  ходе  подготовки Протокола N 4 никто не предлагал отказаться
   от  права  на  индивидуальную жалобу  в  сфере  действия  статьи  3
   Протокола  N  1;  хотя  в  то же время долго  обсуждалась  идея  (в
   конечном  счете  от  нее  отказались) об исключении  данного  круга
   вопросов из-под контроля Суда. Кроме того, часто приводятся  слова:
   "политическая  свобода", "политические права",  "права  человека  и
   основные  политические  свободы", "право  на  проведение  свободных
   выборов" и "право голоса".
       50.  Следовательно  - и стороны единодушны  в  этом  вопросе  -
   "межгосударственный  оттенок"  текста  статьи  3  не   придает   ей
   существенного  отличия от всех других нормативных статей  Конвенции
   и  Протоколов. Похоже, что этот оттенок скорее объясняется желанием
   придать  большую  торжественность взятому на себя обязательству,  а
   также тем, что в рассматриваемой области на первый план выходит  не
   обязательство  воздерживаться или не  вмешиваться,  как  это  имеет
   место  в  отношении большинства гражданских и политических прав,  а
   обязательство   государства   принимать   позитивные    меры    для
   "организации" демократических выборов.
       51. Что же касается природы прав, закрепленных таким образом  в
   статье  3,  то  подход Комиссии несколько изменился, и  от  понятия
   "институционное"  право  на  проведение  свободных   выборов   (см.
   Решение  от  18 сентября 1961 г. о приемлемости жалобы  N  1028/61,
   дело  X  против  Бельгии  D.R., т. 4, с. 338)  Комиссия  перешла  к
   понятию   "всеобщего  избирательного  права"  (см.,  в   частности,
   Решение  от  6 октября 1967 г. о приемлемости заявления N  2728/66,
   дело  X против Федеративной Республики Германии, там же, т. 10,  с.
   338),  а  далее, постепенно, - к понятию субъективных прав участия:
   "права  голоса"  и  "права выдвигать свою кандидатуру  при  выборах
   органа  законодательной власти" (см., в частности,  Решение  от  30
   мая  1975 г. о приемлемости жалоб N 6745 и 6746/76, дело W, X, Y  и
   Z  против  Бельгии,  там же, т. 18, с. 244). Суд  согласен  с  этой
   последней концепцией.
       52.  Данные  права не носят абсолютного характера. Поскольку  в
   статье   3   они  признаются,  но  не  названы  и  тем   более   не
   определяются,    то   существует   возможность   для    имплицитных
   ограничений  (см., mutatis mutandis Решение по делу Голдера  от  21
   февраля  1975  г.  Серия A, т. 18, с. 18 - 19, п. 38).  В  правовых
   системах  государств  -  участников  право  голоса  и  избираемость
   обусловливаются рядом моментов, которые в принципе не  противоречат
   статье  3.  В данной области у этих государств значительны  пределы
   усмотрения,  но  окончательное  решение  о  соблюдении   требований
   Протокола  N  1  принимает Суд; он должен удостовериться,  что  эти
   ограничения не ограничивают данные права до такой степени, что  они
   теряют   реальное   содержание;  что  эти  ограничения   преследуют
   правомерную  цель и что используемые средства являются соразмерными
   (см.,  в  частности,  mutatis mutandis Решение  по  делу  Литгоу  и
   другие  от 8 июля 1986 г. Серия A, т. 102, с. 71, п. 194).  Главное
   -  они  не должны препятствовать "свободному волеизъявлению  народа
   при выборе законодательной власти".
       53.   Действие  статьи  3  распространяется  лишь   на   выборы
   "законодательной  власти" или по крайней мере одной  из  ее  палат,
   если  их  две или более. Тем не менее под термином "законодательная
   власть"  не  обязательно подразумевается только  парламент  страны.
   Его   следует  толковать,  исходя  из  конституционного  устройства
   конкретного государства.
       Суд  отмечает,  что  в результате реформы 1970  г.  Фламандский
   совет  был наделен достаточно широкими компетенцией и полномочиями,
   чтобы  придать  ему, а также Совету франкоговорящего  сообщества  и
   Валлонскому  региональному совету статус участника "законодательной
   власти"  Бельгии наряду с Палатой представителей и Сенатом; стороны
   с этим согласны.
       54. В отношении способа формирования "законодательного корпуса"
   в  статье  3 говорится лишь о необходимости организации "свободных"
   выборов,  проводимых  "с разумной периодичностью",  "путем  тайного
   голосования"  и  "в  таких  условиях, которые  обеспечат  свободное
   волеизъявление   народа".  Кроме  этого  условия,   в   статье   не
   предусматривается    никакой    обязанности    ввести    какую-либо
   определенную  систему; например, пропорциональную или  мажоритарную
   в один или два тура.
       И   здесь   Суд   признает  за  государствами   -   участниками
   значительные  пределы усмотрения, учитывая, что их законодательство
   по этим вопросам различно и время от времени изменяется.
       Перед  избирательными системами стоят порой почти несовместимые
   задачи:  с  одной  стороны - более или менее точно отражать  мнение
   народа,  с  другой  -  объединять  различные  идейные  движения   и
   содействовать    формированию   достаточно   логичной    и    ясной
   политической  воли. Следовательно, под словами "в  таких  условиях,
   которые  обеспечат  свободное  волеизъявление  народа  при   выборе
   законодательной  власти" подразумевается главным образом  наряду  с
   уже  закрепленной  в статье 10 Конвенции свободой выражения  своего
   мнения  принцип равенства всех граждан при осуществлении ими  права
   голоса и права выставлять свою кандидатуру на выборах.
       Однако  из  этого  не следует, что все избирательные  бюллетени
   имеют  равный вес с точки зрения окончательного результата и что  у
   всех  кандидатов  равные шансы на победу. При  любой  избирательной
   системе невозможно избежать феномена "потерянных голосов".
       В  целях  применения статьи 3 Протокола N 1 любая избирательная
   система  должна оцениваться в свете политического развития  страны,
   и  поэтому  определенные  ее детали, недопустимые  в  рамках  одной
   системы,  могут быть оправданны в другой, по крайней мере  при  том
   условии,    что   действующая   система   обеспечивает   "свободное
   волеизъявление народа при выборе законодательной власти".
   
          B. Применение статьи 3 Протокола N 1 в данном деле
   
       55.   Суд   должен  рассмотреть  жалобы  заявителей   в   свете
   приведенного толкования статьи 3.
       56.  Правительство  подчеркивало,  что  ничто  не  препятствует
   франкоязычным  избирателям округа Аль-Вильворд  сознательно  отдать
   свои   голоса  какому-либо  кандидату,  говорящему  на  французском
   языке,  но  который  согласен  принести  парламентскую  присягу  на
   фламандском  языке,  и  тогда  он  на  законном  основании   сможет
   работать   во  Фламандском  совете  и  представлять  в  нем   своих
   избирателей.
       Этот  аргумент не имеет решающего значения. Конечно,  поведение
   избирателей  определяется  не только  языком  и  культурой;  на  их
   голосование   влияют  соображения  политического,   экономического,
   социального, религиозного или философского характера. Тем не  менее
   языковые  преференции оказывают основополагающее влияние на  выбор,
   который  делают  граждане такой страны, как  Бельгия,  и  в  первую
   очередь   жители  такой  "чувствительной"  зоны,  как  коммуны   на
   окраинах  Брюсселя. Принеся присягу на фламандском  языке,  депутат
   не  может  стать членом франкоязычных фракций Палаты представителей
   или  Сената,  которые,  как  и  фламандскоязычные  фракции,  играют
   важную   роль  при  решении  тех  вопросов,  согласно  которым   по
   Конституции требуется "сверхквалифицированное" большинство  (п.  17
   выше).
       57.  Специальный  закон  1980 года  действует  в  рамках  общей
   институционной    системы   бельгийского    государства,    которая
   основывается  на территориальном принципе. Этот принцип  определяет
   административные  и  политические институты и  распределение  между
   ними  компетенции  и полномочий. Проводимая, но  еще  незавершенная
   реформа   направлена   на  установление  равновесия   между   всеми
   различными  культурными сообществами и регионами  Королевства,  для
   чего  используется  сложный механизм сдержек и  противовесов;  цель
   реформы  в  том,  чтобы смягчить языковые различия  путем  создания
   стабильных  и децентрализованных структур. Это легитимное  само  по
   себе   намерение  со  всей  очевидностью  вытекает  из  дебатов   в
   демократическом    национальном    парламенте,    о    чем    также
   свидетельствует  очень  большое количество  голосов,  которые  были
   поданы за данный Закон, включая его статью 29.
       Рассматривая данную избирательную систему, нельзя  забывать  об
   общей  обстановке, в которой она функционирует. Система оказывается
   вполне  разумной,  учитывая условия, которые она отражает.  Свобода
   государства  -  ответчика  в  определении  парламентской  структуры
   Бельгии  весьма значительна, поскольку речь идет о незавершенной  и
   переходной  системе,  при  которой языковые  меньшинства  вынуждены
   отдавать  свои  голоса  тем  кандидатам,  которые  могут  и  готовы
   говорить  на языке их региона. Эта ситуация известна и ряду  других
   государств.  Как показывает опыт, при такой ситуации не обязательно
   существует  угроза  интересам  этих языковых  меньшинств,  особенно
   там,  где  действует  система,  которая  в  целом  основывается  на
   территориальном  принципе, а политический строй  и  правопорядок  в
   стране     предоставляют    такие    гарантии,    как    требование
   квалифицированного  большинства, чтобы  воспрепятствовать  принятию
   произвольных или несвоевременных изменений (см. выше п. 17).
       Франкоязычные избиратели округа Аль-Вильворд пользуются  правом
   голоса и правом быть избранными на тех же законных условиях, что  и
   избиратели, говорящие на фламандском языке. Они ни в коей  мере  не
   теряют  этих  прав  лишь на том основании, что им нужно  голосовать
   либо  за  кандидатов,  которые, принеся  парламентскую  присягу  на
   французском языке, станут членами франкоязычной фракции Палаты  или
   Сената и будут работать в Совете франкоговорящего сообщества,  либо
   за  кандидатов,  которые,  присягая на  фламандском  языке,  станут
   членами  фламандскоязычной фракции Палаты или Сената и Фламандского
   совета.  Это  не слишком большое ограничение, и оно не препятствует
   "свободному   волеизъявлению  народа  при  выборе   законодательной
   власти" (см. п. 51, 52 и 53 in fine выше).
       На   основании  вышеизложенного  Суд  приходит  к  выводу,  что
   нарушение статьи 3 Протокола N 1, взятой отдельно, не имело места.
   
          II. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 14 Конвенции
                в сочетании со статьей 3 Протокола N 1
   
       58.  Г-жа Матье-Моэн и г-н Клерфейт утверждают также,  что  они
   являются   жертвами  неравенства  в  обращении   по   сравнению   с
   депутатами, говорящими на фламандском языке и проживающими,  как  и
   они,   в   административном  округе  Аль-Вильворд.  Поскольку   это
   неравенство   является   следствием   "политики   ассимиляции"    и
   стремления  к  "фламандской реконкисте", его следует  рассматривать
   как  дискриминацию на основе языка и принадлежности к национальному
   меньшинству;  заявители  считают,  что  оно  нарушает   статью   14
   Конвенции в сочетании со статьей 3 Протокола N 1.
       59.  Аргументы, на которых строятся вышеприведенные  заявления,
   аналогичны тем, на которые ссылаются заявители, говоря о  статье  3
   Протокола  N  1, взятой отдельно. В связи с этим Суд ограничивается
   отсылкой  к тем доводам, по которым он уже отверг данные  аргументы
   (см.  п. 57 выше), и приходит к выводу об отсутствии какого  бы  то
   ни было "различия", наносящего ущерб заявителям.
       Таким образом, нет нарушения статьи 14 Конвенции.
   
                        ПО ЭТИМ ОСНОВАНИЯМ СУД
   
       1.  Постановил тринадцатью голосами против пяти, что  нарушение
   статьи 3 Протокола N 1, взятой отдельно, места не имело;
       2.   Постановил  четырнадцатью  голосами  против  четырех,  что
   нарушение статьи 14 Конвенции в сочетании со статьей 3 Протокола  N
   1 места не имело.
   
       Совершено  на  французском и английском языках  и  оглашено  во
   Дворце прав человека в Страсбурге 2 марта 1987 года.
   
                                                          Председатель
                                                         Рольф РИССДАЛ
   
                                                                Грефье
                                                     Марк-Андре ЭЙССЕН
   
   
   
   
   
   
       В  соответствии со статьей 51 п. 2 Конвенции и статьей 52 п.  2
   Регламента  Суда к настоящему Решению прилагаются отдельные  мнения
   судей.
   
                    СОВМЕСТНОЕ ОСОБОЕ МНЕНИЕ СУДЕЙ
                КРЕМОНА, БИНДШЕДЛЕР-РОБЕРТ, БЕРНХАРДТА,
                        ШПИЛЬМАНА И ВАЛЬТИКОСА
   
       Мы  сожалеем, что не можем разделить мнение большинства  членов
   Суда,  поскольку  нам  представляется, что  с  точки  зрения  права
   положение, в котором оказались франкоязычные избиратели и  депутаты
   административного    округа    Аль-Вильворд,     несовместимо     с
   обязательствами,  взятыми на себя Бельгией на  основании  статьи  3
   дополнительного Протокола N 1 к Конвенции как взятой отдельно,  так
   и в сочетании со статьей 14 Конвенции.
       Действующая в данном округе система (как административный округ
   он  расположен  во  фламандском регионе,  а  по  всем  связанным  с
   выборами  вопросам он - с различными ограничениями  -  относится  к
   избирательному  округу  Брюсселя)  в  соответствии  со  Специальным
   законом  от 8 августа 1980 г. (статья 29 з 1) приводит к тому,  что
   депутаты  и сенаторы, избранные от этого округа, не могут  работать
   во   Фламандском   совете   (орган,  который,   безусловно,   имеет
   законодательные   полномочия),  если  в  Парламенте   Бельгии   они
   приносят присягу на французском языке; таким образом, они не  могут
   защищать интересы своего региона в ряде важных областей (таких  как
   обустройство  территории,  окружающая среда,  жилье,  экономическая
   политика, энергетика, занятость), в то время как депутаты,  которые
   присягают  на  фламандском языке, автоматически становятся  членами
   этого  Совета.  Франкоязычное  население  Аль-Вильворда  составляет
   более  100000 человек (при общей численности населения округа более
   500000   человек),  при  этом  для  избрания  депутата  в   среднем
   необходимо от 22000 до 25000 голосов.
       Конкретные  последствия:  если франкоязычные  избиратели  этого
   округа  не  проголосуют  за  кандидатов, говорящих  на  фламандском
   языке, то они не будут представлены в данном региональном Совете.
       Подобное положение делает невозможным (как это и происходит  на
   практике)  представительство на региональном  уровне  франкоязычных
   избирателей  Аль-Вильворда и, следовательно,  не  обеспечивает,  по
   нашему   мнению,  "свободного  волеизъявления  народа  при   выборе
   законодательной  власти", как это требуется на основании  статьи  3
   Протокола  N  1,  и  создает  различие, основанное  на  языке,  что
   противоречит статье 14 Конвенции.
       Ни   один   из  доводов,  приведенных  для  оправдания   данной
   несовместимости, не кажется нам убедительным.
       Франкоязычные депутаты от Аль-Вильворда действительно могли  бы
   работать   в  региональном  (фламандском)  Совете,  если   бы   они
   согласились принести присягу на фламандском языке. Тем не  менее  в
   этом  случае они потеряли бы в Парламенте свой статус франкоязычных
   депутатов,   что  помимо  психологического  и  морального   аспекта
   проблемы  привело  бы к важным политическим последствиям,  учитывая
   ту   роль,  которую  играют  в  Парламенте  фракции,  созданные  по
   языковому принципу.
       Аргумент,  основанный  на  том,  что  по  Конституции   Бельгии
   депутаты  -  это представители всей нации, не является обоснованным
   в  отношении  региональных  советов,  которым  на  основании  самой
   Конституции   поручено  следить  за  соблюдением  интересов   своих
   регионов,  почему  именно  депутаты, избранные  от  этих  регионов,
   получают право в них работать.
       Равным  образом нельзя сравнивать ограничения, о  которых  идет
   речь,  с  теми, которые часто наблюдаются в различных избирательных
   системах  (например, ограничения, присущие мажоритарным системам  и
   различным  системам  пропорционального  представительства,  или  же
   установление определенного числа избирателей, принявших  участие  в
   выборах,  для  того  чтобы они были признаны состоявшимися).  Такие
   ограничения носят общий характер и применяются в равной степени  ко
   всем  избирателям,  в  то  время как  действующая  в  Аль-Вильворде
   система  ограничивает  право  только  франкоязычных  избирателей  и
   депутатов  этого  региона,  основываясь исключительно  на  языковом
   критерии.
       Наконец,  нельзя утверждать, что ситуация, которую рассматривал
   Суд,  имеет  лишь  одно  единственное решение:  даже  то,  что  она
   считается  переходной,  показывает,  что  рассматриваются  или   по
   крайней  мере не исключаются и другие приемлемые решения.  Например
   (но  мы  ни  в  коем  случае  не  считаем,  что  делаем  конкретные
   предложения;  это и не входит в нашу компетенцию),  можно  было  бы
   рассмотреть   возможность   предоставить  различным   франкоязычным
   депутатам  округа  Аль-Вильворд возможность  участвовать  в  работе
   Фламандского   совета,  хотя  они  и  присягали  в  Парламенте   на
   французском  языке,  что  не исключает  того,  что  во  Фламандском
   совете  они будут говорить на фламандском языке, или же возможность
   проведения   отдельных  выборов  на  региональном  и   национальном
   уровнях  при  условии,  что  депутаты,  избранные  на  региональном
   уровне,  смогут участвовать в работе соответствующего регионального
   Совета.  Но,  естественно, само Правительство должно  найти  лучшие
   способы решения этой проблемы.
       Использование  свободы  усмотрения не решает  в  данном  случае
   проблему,    поскольку   эта   свобода   ограничивается    реальным
   соблюдением гарантируемых прав.
   
                      ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ СУДЬИ БЕРНХАРДТА
   
       В  коллективном особом мнении группы судей изложены доводы,  по
   которым  я счел нужным проголосовать за решение о наличии нарушения
   статьи  3  Протокола N 1. Вместе с тем я проголосовал за отсутствие
   нарушения   статьи  14  Конвенции  (в  сочетании   со   статьей   3
   Протокола),  так  как  я  считаю, что в  этой  связи  не  возникает
   никаких  отдельных  вопросов.  Решающим  является  исключение  ряда
   представителей   из   регионального   Совета,   а   не   какая-либо
   дискриминация.
   
               СОВПАДАЮЩЕЕ МНЕНИЕ СУДЬИ ПИНЕЙРО ФАРИНЬИ
   
       1. Я голосовал за принятое решение, но при всем уважении к моим
   выдающимся  коллегам я должен сказать, что меня крайне  смущает  п.
   53.
       2.  Проблема законодательного корпуса, состоящего из  двух  или
   более  палат,  выходит за рамки нашего дела и  не  ставилась  перед
   Судом.  По  моему мнению, следовало бы ограничиться  принципом  sub
   judice  и  отложить рассмотрение вопроса о наличии  двух  палат  до
   того  времени  (если оно наступит), когда этот вопрос  возникнет  в
   одном из дел, переданных в Суд.
       3. В любом случае формулировка "или по крайней мере одной из ее
   палат, если их две или более" несовершенна и опасна.
       В  том  виде,  в  котором она принята, эта  формулировка  может
   привести к созданию системы, противоречащей "волеизъявлению  народа
   при   выборе  законодательной  власти"  или  даже  к  возникновению
   корпоративной,  элитарной  или  классовой  системы,  которая  будет
   нарушать нормы демократии.
       По  моему  мнению, следовало бы сказать: "Или по  крайней  мере
   одной  из  ее  палат, если их две или более, но при двух  условиях:
   большинство    представителей   законодательной    власти    должны
   избираться,  а  палата (или палаты), чьи члены  не  избираются,  не
   пользуется   правами,  которыми  обладает  палата,   сформированная
   свободными выборами при тайном голосовании".
   
   
   
   
   
   
                    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
                                   
             CASE OF MATHIEU-MOHIN AND CLERFAYT v. BELGIUM
                                   
                               JUDGMENT
                                   
                       (Strasbourg, 2.III.1987)
   
       In the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt <*>,
   --------------------------------
       <*>  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 9/1985/95/143.
   The  second  figure  indicates the  year  in  which  the  case  was
   referred  to the Court and the first figure its place on  the  list
   of  cases  referred  in that year; the last two  figures  indicate,
   respectively,  the  case's  order on  the  list  of  cases  and  of
   originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the  Court
   since its creation.
   
       The  European  Court of Human Rights, taking  its  decision  in
   plenary  session in pursuance of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court  and
   composed of the following judges:
       Mr. R. Ryssdal, President,
       Mr. J. Cremona,
       Mr. {Thor Vilhjalmsson} <*>,
       Mrs. D. Bindschedler-Robert,
       Mr. G. Lagergren,
       Mr. {F. Golcuklu},
       Mr. F. Matscher,
       Mr. J. Pinheiro Farinha,
       Mr. L.-E. Pettiti,
       Mr. B. Walsh,
       Sir Vincent Evans,
       Mr. R. Macdonald,
       Mr. C. Russo,
       Mr. R. Bernhardt,
       Mr. J. Gersing,
       Mr. A. Spielmann,
       Mr. N. Valticos,
       Mr. W. Ganshof van der Meersch, ad hoc judge,
       and  also  of Mr. M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H.  Petzold,
   Deputy Registrar,
   --------------------------------
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
   
       Having  deliberated in private on 26 September 1986 and  on  27
   and 28 January 1987,
   
       Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
   mentioned date:
   
                               PROCEDURE
   
       1.  The  present case was referred to the Court by the European
   Commission  of  Human Rights ("the Commission") on  11  July  1985,
   within  the  three-month period laid down in Article  32  з  1  and
   Article  47  (art.  32-1,  art.  47)  of  the  Convention  for  the
   Protection   of   Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms   ("the
   Convention").  The case originated in an application (no.  9267/81)
   against  the Kingdom of Belgium lodged under Article 25  (art.  25)
   on  5  February 1981. The original application was made by  fifteen
   members  of  the Belgian House of Representatives and  Senate,  but
   the  Commission declared it admissible in respect of  only  two  of
   the   applicants,  Mrs.  Lucienne  Mathieu-Mohin  and  Mr.  Georges
   Clerfayt (see paragraphs 40 - 41 below).
       2.  The  Commission's request referred to Articles  44  and  48
   (art.   44,  art.  48)  and  to  the  declaration  whereby  Belgium
   recognised  the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court  (Article  46)
   (art.  46).  The  purpose of the request was to obtain  a  decision
   from  the  Court  as to whether the facts of the case  disclosed  a
   breach  by the respondent State of its obligations under Article  3
   of  Protocol  No.  1 (P1-3), taken either alone  or  together  with
   Article 14 (art. 14+P1-3) of the Convention.
       3. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 з
   3  (d)  of  the  Rules of Court, the applicants  stated  that  they
   wished  to  take part in the proceedings pending before  the  Court
   and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30).
       4.  The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included,  as
   ex  officio  members, Mr. W. Ganshof van der Meersch,  the  elected
   judge  of Belgian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention)  (art.
   43),  and Mr. R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21  з  3
   (b)).  On  2  October 1985, in the presence of the  Registrar,  the
   President  drew by lot the names of the other five members,  namely
   Mr.  J. Cremona, Mrs. D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr. D. Evrigenis, Mr.
   R.  Macdonald  and  Mr.  J. Gersing (Article  43  in  fine  of  the
   Convention and Rule 21 з 4) (art. 43).
       5.  On  22  October  1985,  the  Chamber  decided  unanimously,
   pursuant   to  Rule  50  of  the  Rules  of  Court,  to  relinquish
   jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court.
       6.  Through the Registrar, the President of the Court consulted
   those  who  would be appearing before the Court on the need  for  a
   written  procedure (Rule 37 з 1). On 21 January  1986,  he  decided
   that  the  Agent  of the Belgian Government ("the Government")  and
   the  applicants'  lawyers  should  have  until  21  March  to  file
   memorials,  and that the Commission's Delegate should  be  entitled
   to  file  a  memorial in reply within two months. On 18  March,  he
   agreed  to  extend to 21 May the period granted to  the  Government
   and the second applicant's lawyers.
       The memorials from Mrs. Mathieu-Mohin's lawyers, Mr. Clerfayt's
   lawyers  and  the Government reached the registry on 19  March,  28
   May  and 3 June 1986 respectively. On 18 July, the Secretary to the
   Commission   indicated   that  the  Delegate   would   submit   his
   observations at the hearing.
       7. Having been elected a member of the Court on 29 January 1986
   in  succession to Mr. Ganshof van der Meersch, whose term of office
   had  just  expired, Mr. J. De Meyer was called upon to sit  on  the
   case  by  reason  of his nationality (Article 43 of the  Convention
   and  Rule 2 з 3) (art. 43), but in a letter of 12 February 1986  to
   the  President he said he wished to withdraw as he had  taken  part
   in  the preparation of the impugned Act (Rule 24 з 2). On 27  March
   1986,  the  Government's  Agent  notified  the  Registrar  of   the
   appointment  of  Mr. Ganshof van der Meersch as  an  ad  hoc  judge
   (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 23 з 1) (art. 43).
       8.  After consulting, through the Registrar, the Agent  of  the
   Government, the Commission's Delegate and the applicants'  lawyers,
   the  President  directed on 1 July 1986 that the  oral  proceedings
   should open on 24 September (Rule 38).
       9. The hearing was held in public in the Human Rights Building,
   Strasbourg,  on the appointed day. The Court had held a preparatory
   meeting immediately beforehand.
       There appeared before the Court:
       - for the Government
       Mr. J. Niset, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, Agent,
       Mr. E. Jakhian, avocat, Counsel;
       - for the Commission
       Mr. J.A. Frowein, Delegate;
       - for Mrs. Mathieu-Mohin
       Mr. J.-J. Pegorer, avocat, Counsel;
       - for Mr. Clerfayt
       Mr. B. Maingain,
       Mr. J.-P. Lagasse, avocats, Counsel.
       The Court heard addresses by Mr. Jakhian for the Government, by
   Mr.  Frowein  for the Commission and by Mr. Lagasse,  Mr.  Maingain
   and  Mr.  Pegorer for the applicants, as well as their  replies  to
   questions   put   by  the  Court  and  several   of   its   members
   individually.
       10.  On  17,  23  and  24 September 1986, the  Commission,  the
   applicants  and  the  Government variously  produced  a  number  of
   documents,  either  at  the President's request  or  of  their  own
   accord.
   
                            AS TO THE FACTS
   
                   I. The circumstances of the case
   
                         A. Mrs. Mathieu-Mohin
   
       11.  Mrs.  Mathieu-Mohin,  who  is  a  French-speaking  Belgian
   citizen,  currently lives in Brussels but was living  in  Vilvoorde
   (Vilvorde)  at the time she made her application to the Commission.
   Vilvoorde  is  in  the administrative district  of  Halle-Vilvoorde
   (Hal-Vilvorde),  in  the  Flemish  Region,  and  in  the  electoral
   district of Brussels (see paragraphs 19, 21 and 37 - 38 below).
       The applicant had been elected by direct universal suffrage  in
   the  latter constituency and at the time sat in the Senate, one  of
   the  two  Houses of the national Parliament. As she had  taken  the
   parliamentary  oath in French, she could not be  a  member  of  the
   Flemish  Council (see paragraphs 16, 27 and 30 below). She was,  on
   the  other hand, a member of the French Community Council, but  not
   of the Walloon Regional Council (see paragraphs 27 and 30 below).
       She was not re-elected on 8 November 1981 and did not stand  in
   the general election of October 1985.
   
                            B. Mr. Clerfayt
   
       12.  Mr.  Clerfayt,  who is likewise a French-speaking  Belgian
   national,  was  living  - and still lives -  in  Sint-Genesius-Rode
   ({Rhode-Saint-Genese}).  Like Vilvoorde, this  municipality  is  in
   the  administrative district of Halle-Vilvoorde and  the  electoral
   district  of Brussels. Together with five other localities  on  the
   outskirts of the capital, however, it was given a "special  status"
   by  Parliament  because  of  its large  number  of  French-speaking
   inhabitants (see paragraph 37 below).
       Mr.  Clerfayt  was from the outset active in the ranks  of  the
   Brussels French-Speakers' Democratic Front. Since 1968 he  has  sat
   in  the national Parliament - in the House of Representatives -  as
   a  member  for  the  electoral district of Brussels.  He  took  the
   parliamentary oath in French, which prevents him from belonging  to
   the  Flemish Council; on the other hand, he was and is a member  of
   the  French  Community  Council, but not of  the  Walloon  Regional
   Council.
       13.  On  28 November 1983, Mr. Clerfayt sought leave  from  the
   Speaker  of the House of Representatives to put a question  to  the
   member   of   the  Flemish  Executive  (see  paragraph  27   below)
   responsible  for  matters  relating  to  regional  planning,   land
   policy,  subsidised housing and compulsory purchase in  the  public
   interest,  on a number of relevant issues arising in Sint-Genesius-
   Rode  and  in  other  municipalities in the electoral  district  of
   Brussels.  The next day, leave was refused him on the  ground  that
   his   request  was  inadmissible.  He  accordingly  approached  the
   Speaker  of  the  Flemish Council on 13 December, who  gave  him  a
   similar reply on 15 December.
   
           II. The constitutional and legislative background
   
       14. The Kingdom of Belgium was initially conceived, in 1831, as
   a  unitary State although divided into provinces and municipalities
   with  a  large degree of autonomy (Articles 1, 31 and  108  of  the
   Constitution  of  7  February 1831), but  it  is  gradually  moving
   towards a federal pattern of organisation.
       This  process of change, in which the main landmarks have  been
   the  constitutional reforms of 24 December 1970 and 17  July  1980,
   is  not  yet over. Apart from a number of repercussions on  central
   national  institutions, it has been reflected in  the  creation  of
   Regions    and   Communities;   and   the   position   of   elected
   representatives   and  electors  resident  in  the   administrative
   district of Halle-Vilvoorde has not remained unaffected.
   
            A. Development of central national institutions
   
       15. Legislative power at national level is exercised jointly by
   the  King  and  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  i.e.  the  House  of
   Representatives  and the Senate (Article 20 of  the  Constitution).
   The  House  of  Representatives has 212 members  elected  for  four
   years  by direct universal suffrage in a compulsory secret  ballot,
   under a system of proportional representation (Articles 47, 48,  49
   з  1  and  51); the Senate's membership is made up of 106  Senators
   elected  in the same manner, together with a further number  either
   elected  by  the  provincial councils or else co-opted,  again  for
   four years (Articles 53 - 55).
       As   regards  the  House  of  Representatives,  each  electoral
   district  has  as many seats as the number of times  by  which  its
   population  can  be  divided  by  the  national  factor,  which  is
   calculated  by dividing the population of the Kingdom by  212;  the
   remaining  seats  are allotted to the districts  with  the  largest
   surplus unrepresented populations (Article 49(2)). In order to  win
   a  seat, a candidate must poll about 20,000 votes, the exact  quota
   varying slightly from one constituency to another.
       16.  For  certain decisions specified in the Constitution,  the
   elected  members  of each House are divided into a  French-language
   group  and a Dutch-language group in the manner prescribed  by  law
   and  irrespective  of  the language each member  personally  speaks
   (Article 32 bis of the Constitution).
       In  the  House  of  Representatives the  French-language  group
   includes  as of right the members elected by the constituencies  of
   the  French-speaking region and by the constituency of the district
   of  Verviers, while the Dutch-language group contains  the  members
   elected  by  the constituencies of the Dutch-speaking  region  (see
   paragraph  19 below); the members elected in the Brussels electoral
   district  belong  to  one  or the other group,  according  as  they
   choose  to  take  the  parliamentary oath in  French  or  in  Dutch
   (section 1(1) of the Act of 3 July 1971).
       Similar  criteria apply to the language groups  in  the  Senate
   (section 1(2) of the same Act).
       17. The language groups have a role to play, inter alia, in the
   making  of  various decisions - decisions to withdraw  a  territory
   from  the scheme of division into provinces in order to give  it  a
   special status (Article 1 of the Constitution, last paragraph);  to
   rectify  or otherwise alter the boundaries of the language  regions
   (Article  3  bis);  to  lay  down the  composition  and  manner  of
   functioning  of the Community Councils and Executives  (Article  59
   bis  з  1  in  fine);  to specify the scope of the  powers  of  the
   aforesaid Councils (Article 59 bis зз 2 in fine, 2 bis in fine  and
   4  bis);  and  to determine the powers and territorial jurisdiction
   of  regional institutions (Article 107 quater, last paragraph).  In
   such  cases the Constitution requires "a majority of votes in  each
   language  group of each House"; further conditions  are  that  "the
   majority  of  the members of each group is present" and  that  "the
   total  of  the  affirmative votes cast in the two  language  groups
   amounts to at least two-thirds of the votes cast".
       In  addition to this there is the system - sometimes called the
   "alarm bell" - provided for in Article 38 bis of the Constitution:
       "Other  than for the budgets and for Acts requiring  a  special
   majority,  a  reasoned motion signed by at least three-quarters  of
   the  members of one of the language groups may be moved  after  the
   report  has  been  tabled and before the final  vote  is  taken  in
   public  session,  stating that the provisions of a  specified  Bill
   are  likely  to be seriously detrimental to relations  between  the
   Communities.
       In  that  case the parliamentary proceedings shall be suspended
   and  the  motion  referred  to  the Cabinet,  which  shall  give  a
   reasoned  opinion  on it within thirty days and request  the  House
   concerned  to vote either on this opinion or on the Bill,  possibly
   in amended form.
       This  procedure shall not be used more than once by the members
   of a language group in respect of any one Bill."
       These provisions are designed primarily to protect the speakers
   of the country's minority language, i.e. French.
       On  the  other  hand, membership of a language group  does  not
   entail   any  obligation  to  use  the  language  concerned  during
   parliamentary debates. Furthermore, by the terms of Article  32  of
   the  Constitution, members of the House of Representatives and  the
   Senate  "represent the nation" as a whole, "not solely the province
   or subdivision of a province which has sent them to Parliament".
       18.  As  to the Cabinet, it shall have "as many French-speaking
   Ministers as Dutch-speaking ones", "with the possible exception  of
   the Prime Minister" (Article 86 bis of the Constitution).
   
                      B. Regions and Communities
   
                            1. Description
   
       (a) Language regions
       19.  By Article 3 bis of the Constitution, added on 24 December
   1970,  Belgium is divided into "four language regions: the  French-
   language  region,  the Dutch-language region, the bilingual  region
   of   Brussels-Capital   and  the  German-language   region";   each
   municipality "shall belong to one of these".
       The  first language region comprises the provinces of  Hainaut,
   Luxembourg  and  Namur,  the  province  of  {Liege}  excluding  the
   municipalities in the German-language region, and the  district  of
   Nivelles  in  the  province of Brabant; the second region  contains
   the   provinces  of  Antwerp,  West  Flanders,  East  Flanders  and
   Limbourg  and  also  the districts of Halle-Vilvoorde  -  in  which
   Vilvoorde  and  Sint-Genesius-Rode lie (see paragraphs  11  and  12
   above)  -  and Louvain in Brabant; the third, Brussels and eighteen
   municipalities  on  its outskirts; and the fourth,  twenty-five  of
   the  municipalities in the district of Verviers  (sections  3-6  of
   the  Acts  on  the  use  of  languages in  administrative  matters,
   consolidated on 18 July 1966, hereinafter referred to as "the  1966
   consolidated Acts").
       (b) Regions
       20.  The language regions serve to define the territorial scope
   of  Acts  on  the use of languages in administrative  and  judicial
   matters as well as in education; they do not have their own  powers
   or  institutions. In this they differ from the Regions -  sometimes
   described   as   "political"  -  which  were  set  up   under   the
   constitutional reform of 24 December 1970.
       21.   By   Article   107  quater,  first  paragraph,   of   the
   Constitution, Belgium has "three Regions: the Walloon  Region,  the
   Flemish  Region  and  the Brussels Region";  there  is  no  "German
   Region".
       The  Special Act on Institutional Reform of 8 August 1980 ("the
   1980  Special  Act") "transitionally" demarcates the  territory  of
   the  first  two Regions: the Flemish Region comprises  exactly  the
   same  provinces  and administrative districts as the Dutch-language
   region,  while  the  Walloon Region includes, in  addition  to  the
   provinces  of  Hainaut, Luxembourg and Namur and  the  district  of
   Nivelles,  the  whole of the province of {Liege} not excluding  the
   municipalities  of  the German-language region (section  2  of  the
   1980 Special Act).
       On the other hand, the 1980 Special Act makes no mention of the
   Brussels Region. The boundaries of this continue to be governed  by
   the  final  paragraph of section 1 of the Act, consolidated  on  20
   July   1979,   "establishing  temporary  Community   and   regional
   institutions";   they   correspond  to  the   "territory   of   the
   administrative district of Brussels-Capital".
       22. The 1980 Special Act was passed with the special majorities
   required  under Articles 59 bis and 107 quater of the  Constitution
   (see  paragraph  17  above) and which would  be  required  for  any
   subsequent amendments. In the Senate it was passed by 137 votes  to
   22,  with 3 abstentions, and in the House of Representatives by 156
   votes to 19, with 5 abstentions.
       (c) Communities
       23.   Lastly,   Article  3  ter,  first   paragraph,   of   the
   Constitution,  which dates back to the revision of  17  July  1980,
   establishes  "three Communities: the French Community, the  Flemish
   Community and the German-speaking Community", all of which  -  like
   the  Walloon and Flemish Regions - have legal personality  (section
   3 of the 1980 Special Act).
   
                       2. Spheres of competence
   
       (a) Regions
       24.  Section  6(1)  of  the 1980 Special  Act  was  enacted  to
   implement   Article   107   quater,  second   paragraph,   of   the
   Constitution  and  it  sets  out, at  length  and  in  detail,  the
   competence  of  the  Walloon  and Flemish  Regions  in  matters  of
   regional  planning,  the  environment,  rural  renewal  and  nature
   conservation,  housing,  water  policy,  economic  policy,   energy
   policy,  subordinate  authorities, employment  policy  and  applied
   research.
       It  does  not apply to the Brussels Region, which continues  to
   come  under the national Parliament as regards regional matters  or
   those  which can be regarded as local (section 48 of the "ordinary"
   Act  on Institutional Reform of 9 August 1980, taken together  with
   section 2 of the "consolidated" Act of 20 July 1979).
       (b) Communities
       25.  Article  59  bis  зз 2, 2 bis and 3  of  the  Constitution
   confers  powers on the French and Flemish Communities  in  cultural
   matters, education (with certain exceptions), co-operation  between
   the  Communities, international cultural co-operation,  matters  on
   which members of the public may correspond with the authorities  in
   their  own  language even if it is not the local official  language
   ({matieres}  "personnalisables") and - in some  fields  -  language
   use.  Sections 4 and 5(1) of the 1980 Special Act contain  detailed
   provisions  as to cultural matters and {matieres} personnalisables;
   the  latter  relate  to  health policy,  aid  for  individuals  and
   applied  scientific  research.  The German-speaking  Community,  to
   which  little  further  reference will  be  made  hereinafter,  has
   slightly  less  extensive powers (Article 59  ter  2  -  4  of  the
   Constitution).
   
                            3. Institutions
   
       (a) Description
       26.  Article  107 quater, second paragraph, of the Constitution
   leaves it to Parliament to set up the necessary regional bodies.
       Article 59 bis з 1, on the other hand, provides that the French
   Community  and the Flemish Community shall each have a Council  and
   an  Executive.  Under the following paragraph, these  Councils  and
   Executives  "shall be able to exercise the powers  of  the  Walloon
   Region  and  the Flemish Region respectively, in the  circumstances
   and the manner prescribed by law".
       27.  The legislature has availed itself of this possibility  in
   respect  of  the Flemish Region only. By section 1(1) of  the  1980
   Special  Act,  "the  Council  and  the  Executive  of  the  Flemish
   Community",  referred  to  as "the Flemish  Council"  ("de  Vlaamse
   Raad")  and "the Flemish Executive" ("de Vlaamse Executieve"),  are
   vested  with  powers not only in respect of the  Community  matters
   listed  in  Article 59 bis of the Constitution  but  also,  in  the
   Flemish  Region,  in  respect  of the regional  matters  listed  in
   Article 107 quater.
       On  the other hand, there is a Council and an Executive of  the
   French  Community  for  Community matters and  a  Walloon  Regional
   Council  and Executive for regional matters (section 1(2)  and  (3)
   of  the  1980 Special Act). Subsection 4 of section 1 of  the  1980
   Special  Act admittedly authorises the two Councils to  "decide  by
   common  accord"  that  "the Council and  Executive  of  the  French
   Community"  shall exercise, in the Walloon Region, "the  powers  of
   the regional institutions in respect of the matters referred to  in
   Article  107  quater  of the Constitution", but  it  has  not  been
   applied hitherto.
       28.  The  Brussels Region continues for the time  being  to  be
   regulated  by the consolidated Act of 1979 which has been  referred
   to  previously.  It does not have any legislative assembly  similar
   to  the  Flemish  Council or the Walloon Regional  Council  or  any
   executive  elected by such an assembly; it has only a  "ministerial
   committee" appointed by royal decree (section 4).
       According   to   the  Government,  this  is  a  "'wait-and-see'
   situation".  In  1980,  the  Legislation  Section  of  the  Conseil
   d'Etat,  which had been asked for its opinion, expressed  the  view
   that  the  Bill  that  was  to become  the  1980  Special  Act  was
   "constitutionally admissible only on condition that  implementation
   of  Article  107  quater [of the Constitution] in  respect  of  the
   Brussels  Region  is  merely postponed and not abandoned  and  that
   failure  to  implement  it does not continue  beyond  a  reasonable
   time".
       In  a statement on 29 November 1985, the government elected the
   previous  month made it clear that the Study Centre for  Reform  of
   the  State ({Centre d'etudes pour la reforme de l'Etat}) would have
   to  "pay  particular attention to the problems  of  Brussels".  The
   Study  Centre was set up under a royal decree of 14 March 1983  and
   is  staffed by parliamentarians and practising or former university
   teachers of constitutional law. Its remit is to prepare the  ground
   for  the "continuation, amendment and improvement of reform of  the
   State".
   
       (b) Membership
           (i)  Councils
       29.  The Constitution indicates only, in Article 59 bis з 1  in
   fine  (French and Flemish Communities), Article 59 ter з 1,  second
   sub-paragraph (German-speaking Community), and Article 107  quater,
   second  paragraph  (Regions), that the Councils  shall  consist  of
   elected delegates.
       When required to prescribe how these were to be appointed,  the
   legislation  provided  for  two  consecutive  transitional  periods
   designed  to  ease  the  change to a permanent  system.  The  first
   period,  during  the  course  of  which  the  application  to   the
   Commission  was lodged (5 February 1981), ended with  the  complete
   renewal  of  both  Houses of Parliament on  8  November  1981;  the
   second  period,  which is not yet over, will end once  Articles  53
   and  54  of  the  Constitution, concerning the  Senate,  have  been
   revised.
       30.  During  the first transitional period the Flemish  Council
   and  the  French  Community Council comprised the  members  of  the
   Dutch-  and  French-language groups of the two Houses respectively;
   the  Walloon Regional Council was composed of those members of  the
   same  French-language  groups  who  were  elected  either  in   the
   provinces   of   Hainaut,   {Liege},  Luxembourg   or   Namur,   or
   alternatively  in  Brabant or by the Senate if, additionally,  they
   were  resident  in the Walloon Region on the day of their  election
   (section 28(1) of the 1980 Special Act).
       31.  For the duration of the second transitional period,  which
   has  not  yet  ended,  the Flemish Council,  the  French  Community
   Council,  and the Walloon Regional Council consist respectively  of
   the members of:
       - the Dutch-language group in the House of Representatives and,
   if  they  have  been  directly elected by the  electorate,  in  the
   Senate;
       -  the  French-language group in the House  of  Representatives
   and, subject to the same condition, in the Senate; and
       - the French-language group in either House, provided that they
   are  Representatives or Senators directly elected in the  provinces
   of  Hainaut,  {Liege}, Luxembourg or Namur or in  the  district  of
   Nivelles.
       This  is  the provision made in section 29 of the 1980  Special
   Act,  to  which  the applicants' complaints are primarily  directed
   (see  paragraph  44 below). The section was passed by  the  special
   majorities  required under Articles 59 bis and 107  quater  of  the
   Constitution. In the Senate it was passed by 127 votes to 19,  with
   4  abstentions, and in the House of Representatives by 160 votes to
   16, with 2 abstentions.
       32.  Once  the permanent system has come into force, the  three
   Councils  will  consist solely of members of  the  Senate  directly
   elected by the electorate, viz.:
       -  the Senators of the Dutch-language group in the case of  the
   Flemish Council; and
       -  the Senators of the French-language group in the case of the
   French  Community  Council  and,  if  they  were  elected  in   the
   provinces  of  Hainaut,  Liшge,  Luxembourg  or  Namur  or  in  the
   district  of Nivelles, in the case of the Walloon Regional  Council
   (sections 24 and 25 of the 1980 Special Act).
       33.  The first paragraph of section 50 of the 1980 Special  Act
   makes  a  special  provision in respect  of  the  "members  of  the
   Flemish  Council  elected  by  the constituency  for  the  Brussels
   district  and  who,  for as long as that electoral  district  shall
   comprise  [as  it  does  today (see paragraph  38  below)]  several
   administrative  districts,  are resident  in  the  Brussels-Capital
   bilingual region on the day of their election": although  they  are
   on  the same footing as their colleagues in Community matters, they
   "shall  not  vote within the Flemish Council on matters  for  which
   the Flemish Region has responsibility".
           (ii)  Executives
       34. The three Executives are elected by the Councils from among
   their  own  members (sections 59 and 60 of the 1980  Special  Act).
   The  Flemish  Executive  has  nine members,  the  French  Community
   Executive  three and the Walloon Regional Executive six;  at  least
   one  member  of  the  Flemish Executive and  the  French  Community
   Executive  "shall belong to the Brussels-Capital bilingual  region"
   (section 63).
       "Whenever the Flemish Executive discusses matters for which the
   Flemish  Region  has  responsibility, any members  elected  by  the
   constituency of the Brussels district and who, for as long as  that
   electoral    district   shall   comprise   several   administrative
   districts,  are  resident in the Brussels-Capital bilingual  region
   on  the  day  of  their  election shall sit  only  in  an  advisory
   capacity" (section 76(1)).
       35. The Brussels Region Ministerial Committee (see paragraph 28
   above)  consists of three members appointed "by royal decree  after
   deliberation  in  Cabinet"  and not elected  by  an  assembly.  The
   members  are: one Minister, who acts as Chairman, and two Ministers
   of  State  "one  of whom shall be from a different  language  group
   from  the  [Chairman's]" (section 4, first paragraph, of  the  1979
   consolidated Act).
   
       (c) Powers
       36.  The  French and Flemish Communities, like the Walloon  and
   Flemish  Regions, have power to issue decrees, and  this  power  is
   exercised jointly by their respective institutions (Article 26  bis
   and  Article 59 bis зз 2, 2 bis and 3 of the Constitution, sections
   17  and 18 of the 1980 Special Act); additionally, their Executives
   have  power  to  make regulations (section 20 of the  1980  Special
   Act).  The  Executives each work in only one  language  (French  or
   Dutch,   as  appropriate),  without  interpreters  for  the   other
   language.
       A  decree has "the force of law" and "may abrogate, supplement,
   amend or replace existing provisions of law" (section 19(2) of  the
   1980  Special  Act). The constitutional reforms of  1970  and  1980
   thus  resulted  in the rule-making function being shared  by  three
   distinct   legislative   bodies:  the  national   Parliament,   the
   Community Councils and the Regional Councils.
       Subject  to  a  number  of  exceptions,  the  French  Community
   Council's  decrees and, in Community matters, those of the  Flemish
   Council  apply in the French-language region and the Dutch-language
   region  respectively, "and also to institutions established in  the
   Brussels-Capital  bilingual  region  which,  by  reason  of   their
   activities,  must be regarded as belonging exclusively  to  one  of
   the   Communities"  (Article  59  bis  зз  4  and  4  bis  of   the
   Constitution);  the  Walloon Regional  Council's  decrees  and,  in
   regional  matters,  those  of the Flemish  Council  apply  "in  the
   Walloon  Region  or  the  Flemish Region, as appropriate"  (section
   19(3)  of  the  1980 Special Act); and the decrees of  the  Flemish
   Council   indicate  whether  "they  regulate  any  of  the  matters
   referred  to  in  Article 59 bis or in Article 107  quater  of  the
   Constitution",  in  other  words  Community  or  regional   matters
   (section 19(1), second paragraph, of the 1980 Special Act).
       By  Article 107 ter of the Constitution, "the procedure for the
   avoidance  of  conflict  between statutes, decrees  and  the  rules
   referred  to  in Article 26 bis, and between different  decrees  or
   different  [rules] shall be prescribed by law". "For the  whole  of
   Belgium  there  shall  be a Court of Arbitration"  responsible  for
   resolving  such  conflicts and whose membership,  jurisdiction  and
   manner  of  functioning is to be laid down by law (Act of  28  June
   1983).
   
             C. The special position of voters and elected
            representatives resident in the administrative
                      district of Halle-Vilvoorde
   
       37.  The administrative district of Halle-Vilvoorde was created
   in  1983,  and today it comprises the municipalities of the  former
   administrative  district  of  Brussels,  excluding  those  in   the
   bilingual  district of Brussels, but including the six  "peripheral
   municipalities  with  special status", of which  Sint-Genesius-Rode
   is  one  (sections  3(2), 7 and 23 - 31 of  the  1966  consolidated
   Acts).
       Halle-Vilvoorde comes within the Dutch-language region and  the
   Flemish  Region and thus under the authority of the Flemish Council
   and  Executive, and is accordingly not subject to the authority  of
   the  French  Community institutions or those of the Walloon  Region
   (see  paragraphs 19, 21 and 36 above). It nevertheless  contains  a
   sizable  French-speaking  minority:  according  to  the  applicants
   (whose  figures  were  not disputed by the  Government),  at  least
   100,000  people out of a total population of 518,962 at  1  January
   1982.  The  French-speakers are even claimed to be in the  majority
   in  the  six "peripheral municipalities", and the Belgian State  is
   alleged to have acted against their wishes in hitherto refusing  to
   incorporate these municipalities into the Brussels Region.
       38.  Ordinarily, electoral districts in Belgium  correspond  to
   administrative  ones (Article 87 of the Electoral Code).  There  is
   one  exception, however. The administrative districts of  Brussels-
   Capital  and  Halle-Vilvoorde  together  form  a  single  electoral
   district  for parliamentary and provincial elections, with Brussels
   as  the principal town (section 3(2), second paragraph, of the 1966
   consolidated  Acts).  The  votes cast  in  the  two  administrative
   districts  are consequently counted together, and it is  impossible
   to  distinguish between candidates elected by the one district  and
   those  elected by the other. The applicants claim that the  French-
   speaking voters in the Halle-Vilvoorde district can expect -  given
   their  numbers and the statutory quota (see paragraphs  15  and  37
   above)  -  to  return  three  or  four  members  to  the  House  of
   Representatives by their own votes alone.
       In  the  general election of 8 November 1981 there were 999,601
   registered  voters in the Brussels electoral district, who  had  to
   elect  34  Representatives  and 17  Senators  (Royal  Decree  of  1
   December 1972 and Act of 19 July 1973).
       39.  Nothing  prevents  French-speaking  candidates  -  whether
   resident in Halle-Vilvoorde or not - from standing for election  in
   that  district, or the voters - whether French-speaking  or  not  -
   from  voting  for  them. If they are elected,  they  may  take  the
   parliamentary  oath  in French or Dutch as they wish,  irrespective
   of the language they personally speak (see paragraph 16 above).
       If  they take the oath in French (as the applicants did), their
   membership   of  the  French-language  group  in   the   House   of
   Representatives or the Senate entitles them to sit  on  the  French
   Community Council (which has no responsibility for the district  of
   Halle-Vilvoorde)  but  not  on  the  Flemish  Council   -   whether
   exercising  its Community or its regional functions -  nor  on  the
   Walloon Regional Council (see paragraphs 30 - 32 and 36 above).
       Conversely,  if  they  take the oath in  Dutch,  they  will  be
   members of a Dutch-language group and will accordingly sit  on  the
   Flemish Council but not on the French Community Council nor on  the
   Walloon  Regional Council (see paragraphs 30 - 32 above); and  they
   will  lose  the right to vote in a French-language group  on  those
   matters  in  respect  of  which the Constitution  requires  special
   majorities (see paragraph 17 above).
       Correspondingly, the French-speaking voters in  Halle-Vilvoorde
   cannot  be  represented  on  the  Flemish  Council  other  than  by
   parliamentarians who have taken the oath in Dutch.
       Candidates  are  not under any obligation to state  in  advance
   which  language  group they will join, and they do not  usually  do
   so.
   
                   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
   
       40.  The  application  was  lodged with  the  Commission  on  5
   February  1981  and  registered  on  12  February  under  file  no.
   9267/81.  It  was originally made by eight members of  the  Belgian
   Senate  and  seven members of the Belgian House of Representatives,
   all  of  whom  were resident in Brussels except for  Mrs.  Mathieu-
   Mohin and Mr. Clerfayt.
       The  signatories objected to a number of clauses  in  the  1980
   Special  Act,  and in particular to those governing the  method  of
   appointing  members  of  the Community and  regional  Councils  and
   Executives; they also criticised Parliament on the ground  that  it
   had  not  provided the Brussels Region with institutions comparable
   to  those  of  the  Walloon  and Flemish Regions.  They  relied  on
   Articles  1  and 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1, P1-3), taken  alone  or
   together  with  Article  14 (art. 14+P1-1,  art.  14+P1-3)  of  the
   Convention.
       41.  The  Commission took its decision on the admissibility  of
   the application on 12 July 1983.
       It   dismissed,  as  incompatible  ratione  materiae  with  the
   provisions of the Convention, the complaint regarding Article 1  of
   Protocol  No.  1 (P1-1) and, as manifestly without foundation,  the
   complaints  concerning the absence of any institutions specific  to
   the  Brussels  Region and the fact that the Dutch-speaking  elected
   representatives  resident  in Brussels-Capital  took  part  in  the
   deliberations of the Flemish Council in an advisory capacity,  with
   the  right  of  initiative, whereas the same was not  true  of  the
   French-speaking   elected  representatives   (section   50,   first
   paragraph, of the 1980 Special Act - see paragraph 33 above).
       It  declared  the  application admissible, on the  other  hand,
   inasmuch  as  Mrs.  Mathieu-Mohin and Mr. Clerfayt  complained,  as
   voters  living in municipalities in the administrative district  of
   Halle-Vilvoorde,   that   they  could  not  elect   French-speaking
   representatives  to  the  regional  assembly  under  which   Halle-
   Vilvoorde  came  and, as elected representatives, that  they  could
   not  sit  in  that  assembly,  whereas,  mutatis  mutandis,  Dutch-
   speaking   voters   and  elected  representatives   in   the   same
   municipalities could.
       42.  In  its  report of 15 March 1985 (made under  Article  31)
   (art. 31), the Commission expressed the opinion
       -  by  ten votes to one that there had been a failure to comply
   with  the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3), taken
   alone, in respect of the applicants as electors;
       -  that it was unnecessary to consider the case from the  point
   of  view  of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention or to  consider
   separately  the  question whether there had been a  breach  of  the
   Convention  and of Protocol No. 1 (P1) in respect of the applicants
   as elected representatives.
       The  full text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as  an
   annex to this judgment.
   
         FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT
   
       43. The Court was requested by the Government in their memorial
   "to  decide that, in respect of the applicants, there has  been  no
   violation  of any provision of the Convention ... or of  the  First
   Protocol  (P1)  thereto"; by Mrs. Mathieu-Mohin in  hers  "to  hold
   that  the  Belgian Act of 8 August 1980 ... violates her rights  as
   an   elector   and   elected   representative   resident   in   the
   administrative district of Halle-Vilvoorde under Article 3  of  the
   First  Protocol, taken together with Article 14 (art.  14+P1-3)  of
   the  Convention";  and  by Mr. Clerfayt  in  his  "to  declare  his
   application well-founded and to accede to it in all respects".
       These  submissions were maintained in substance at the  hearing
   on   24  September  1986;  Mrs.  Mathieu-Mohin  also  claimed  just
   satisfaction  under Article 50 (art. 50) in the sum of  50,000  BEF
   for costs.
   
                             AS TO THE LAW
   
                   I. Alleged violation of Article 3
                 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) taken alone
   
       44.  The applicants complained in two respects of section 29(1)
   of  the  1980 Special Act, which for the time being determines  the
   membership  of  the  Flemish  Council  (see  paragraph  31  above).
   Firstly,  they claimed that it does not in practice enable  French-
   speaking   electors  in  the  administrative  district  of   Halle-
   Vilvoorde - which comes within the territory of the Flemish  Region
   but   forms   a  single  electoral  district  with  the   bilingual
   administrative district of Brussels (see paragraphs 37 - 38  above)
   -   to  appoint  French-speaking  representatives  to  the  Flemish
   Council,  while  Dutch-speaking electors can appoint Dutch-speaking
   representatives  (see  paragraph 39, fourth sub-paragraph,  above).
   Secondly,   they  claimed  that  it  prevents  any  parliamentarian
   elected  in  that electoral district and resident  in  one  of  the
   municipalities  of  the administrative district of  Halle-Vilvoorde
   from  sitting on the Flemish Council if he belongs to  the  French-
   language  group in the House of Representatives or the Senate,  and
   that   this   is  an  obstacle  not  encountered  by  the   elected
   representatives  who  belong  to a  Dutch-language  group  and  are
   resident  in  one  of  the same municipalities  (see  paragraph  39
   above).
       According to Mrs. Mathieu-Mohin and Mr. Clerfayt, this  entails
   a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3), which provides:
       "The  High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections
   at  reasonable  intervals by secret ballot, under conditions  which
   will  ensure  the free expression of the opinion of the  people  in
   the choice of the legislature."
       45.  The  Commission  accepted  the  applicants'  argument   in
   substance. The Government rejected it, pointing out that a  French-
   speaking  representative from the electoral  district  of  Brussels
   who  was resident in the administrative district of Halle-Vilvoorde
   would sit on the Flemish Council and represent his constituents  if
   he  took his parliamentary oath in Dutch (see paragraphs 16, 31 and
   39,  third  sub-paragraph, above). The Government  also  emphasised
   the   provisional  nature  of  the  situation  complained  of  (see
   paragraphs 14, 21, 24, 28 and 29 above).
   
                    A. Interpretation of Article 3
                       of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3)
   
       46.  Since  the  Court  is being asked to determine  complaints
   under  Article  3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) for the first  time,  it
   deems  it  necessary to indicate the meaning it  ascribes  to  that
   Article (P1-3) in the context of the instant case.
       47.  According  to the Preamble to the Convention,  fundamental
   human  rights  and  freedoms are best maintained by  "an  effective
   political   democracy".   Since  it  enshrines   a   characteristic
   principle  of  democracy, Article 3 of Protocol  No.  1  (P1-3)  is
   accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system.
       48.  Where  nearly  all the other substantive  clauses  in  the
   Convention  and in Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 (P1,  P4,  P6,  P7)
   use  the  words "Everyone has the right" or "No one shall", Article
   3  (P1-3) uses the phrase "The High Contracting Parties undertake".
   It  has  sometimes been inferred from this that the Article  (P1-3)
   does  not  give  rise  to individual rights and freedoms  "directly
   secured  to  anyone" within the jurisdiction of these Parties  (see
   the  Ireland  v.  the United Kingdom judgment of 18  January  1978,
   Series  A no. 25, p. 91, з 239), but solely to obligations  between
   States.
       If   that  were  so,  Mrs.  Mathieu-Mohin  and  Mr.  Clerfayt's
   application  to  the  Commission would not  have  been  admissible,
   since  -  under  Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention  -  only  a
   person  claiming to be the victim of a violation of one of his  own
   rights and freedoms has standing to petition the Commission.
       49.  Such  a  restrictive interpretation does not stand  up  to
   scrutiny.  According to its Preamble, Protocol No. 1  (P1)  ensures
   "the  collective enforcement of certain rights and  freedoms  other
   than  those  already  included in Section  I  of  the  Convention";
   furthermore,  Article  5  of  the  Protocol  (P1-5)  provides:  "as
   between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles  1,
   2,  3  and  4  (P1-1, P1-2, P1-3, P1-4) ... shall  be  regarded  as
   additional  Articles to the Convention", all of whose provisions  -
   including  Article  25  (art.  25)  -  "shall  apply  accordingly".
   Moreover,  the Preamble to Protocol No. 4 (P4) refers, inter  alia,
   to  the  "rights and freedoms" protected in "Articles 1  to  3"  of
   Protocol No. 1 (P1-1, P1-2, P1-3).
       Nor  do  the  travaux {preparatoires} of Protocol  No.  1  (P1)
   disclose  any intention of excluding the operation of the right  of
   individual  petition  as regards Article 3 (P1-3),  whereas  for  a
   long  time the idea was canvassed - only to be finally abandoned  -
   of  withholding  the  subject from the  Court's  jurisdiction.  The
   travaux   prщparatoires  also  frequently   refer   to   "political
   freedom",  "political rights", "the political rights and  liberties
   of  the  individual", "the right to free elections" and "the  right
   of election".
       50.  Accordingly - and those appearing before  the  Court  were
   agreed on this point - the inter-State colouring of the wording  of
   Article 3 (P1-3) does not reflect any difference of substance  from
   the  other substantive clauses in the Convention and Protocols. The
   reason  for  it  would seem to lie rather in  the  desire  to  give
   greater  solemnity to the commitment undertaken  and  in  the  fact
   that  the primary obligation in the field concerned is not  one  of
   abstention or non-interference, as with the majority of  the  civil
   and  political rights, but one of adoption by the State of positive
   measures to "hold" democratic elections.
       51. As to the nature of the rights thus enshrined in Article  3
   (P1-3),  the  view  taken by the Commission has evolved.  From  the
   idea  of  an "institutional" right to the holding of free elections
   (decision  of 18 September 1961 on the admissibility of application
   no.  1028/61, X v. Belgium, Yearbook of the Convention, vol. 4,  p.
   338)  the  Commission  has  moved  to  the  concept  of  "universal
   suffrage" (see particularly the decision of 6 October 1967  on  the
   admissibility  of  application  no.  2728/66,  X  v.  the   Federal
   Republic  of  Germany, op. cit., vol. 10, p. 338) and  then,  as  a
   consequence,  to the concept of subjective rights of  participation
   -  the "right to vote" and the "right to stand for election to  the
   legislature" (see in particular the decision of 30 May 1975 on  the
   admissibility of applications nos. 6745-6746/76, W, X, Y and  Z  v.
   Belgium,  op.  cit.,  vol.  18, p. 244). The  Court  approves  this
   latter concept.
       52.  The  rights in question are not absolute. Since Article  3
   (P1-3)  recognises  them  without setting  them  forth  in  express
   terms,   let  alone  defining  them,  there  is  room  for  implied
   limitations  (see,  mutatis mutandis, the  Golder  judgment  of  21
   February  1975,  Series  A no. 18, pp.  18  -  19,  38).  In  their
   internal  legal orders the Contracting States make  the  rights  to
   vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are  not
   in  principle  precluded under Article 3 (P1-3) (Collected  Edition
   of  the  "{Travaux Preparatoires}", vol. III, p. 264, and vol.  IV,
   p.  24).  They  have a wide margin of appreciation in this  sphere,
   but  it  is  for the Court to determine in the last resort  whether
   the  requirements of Protocol No. 1 (P1) have been  complied  with;
   it  has  to  satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail  the
   rights  in  question  to such an extent as  to  impair  their  very
   essence  and  deprive them of their effectiveness;  that  they  are
   imposed  in  pursuit  of  a  legitimate aim;  and  that  the  means
   employed  are not disproportionate (see, amongst other  authorities
   and  mutatis mutandis, the Lithgow and Others judgment  of  8  July
   1986,  Series  A  no.  102,  p. 71, з  194).  In  particular,  such
   conditions  must not thwart "the free expression of the opinion  of
   the people in the choice of the legislature".
       53.  Article  3  (P1-3) applies only to  the  election  of  the
   "legislature", or at least of one of its chambers if it has two  or
   more  ("{Travaux Preparatoires}", vol. VIII, pp. 46,  50  and  52).
   The  word "legislature" does not necessarily mean only the national
   parliament, however; it has to be interpreted in the light  of  the
   constitutional structure of the State in question.
       The  Court notes at the outset that the 1980 reform vested  the
   Flemish Council with competence and powers wide enough to make  it,
   alongside  the  French Community Council and the  Walloon  Regional
   Council,  a  constituent  part  of  the  Belgian  "legislature"  in
   addition  to  the  House of Representatives  and  the  Senate  (see
   paragraphs  24 - 25, 27 and 37 above); those appearing  before  the
   Court were agreed on this point.
       54.  As  regards  the  method of appointing the  "legislature",
   Article  3 (P1-3) provides only for "free" elections "at reasonable
   intervals",  "by  secret ballot" and "under conditions  which  will
   ensure  the free expression of the opinion of the people".  Subject
   to  that,  it  does  not  create any  "obligation  to  introduce  a
   specific  system" ("{Travaux Preparatoires}", vol.  VII,  pp.  130,
   202   and   210,  and  vol.  VIII,  p.  14)  such  as  proportional
   representation or majority voting with one or two ballots.
       Here  too the Court recognises that the Contracting States have
   a  wide margin of appreciation, given that their legislation on the
   matter varies from place to place and from time to time.
       Electoral systems seek to fulfil objectives which are sometimes
   scarcely  compatible with each other: on the one hand,  to  reflect
   fairly faithfully the opinions of the people, and on the other,  to
   channel  currents of thought so as to promote the  emergence  of  a
   sufficiently   clear  and  coherent  political   will.   In   these
   circumstances  the phrase "conditions which will  ensure  the  free
   expression  of  the  opinion of the people in  the  choice  of  the
   legislature"   implies  essentially  -  apart   from   freedom   of
   expression  (already protected under Article 10 of the  Convention)
   (art.  10) - the principle of equality of treatment of all citizens
   in  the  exercise of their right to vote and their right  to  stand
   for election.
       It  does  not  follow, however, that all votes must necessarily
   have  equal weight as regards the outcome of the election  or  that
   all  candidates  must  have  equal  chances  of  victory.  Thus  no
   electoral system can eliminate "wasted votes".
       For  the  purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1  (P1-3),  any
   electoral  system  must be assessed in the light of  the  political
   evolution  of  the  country  concerned;  features  that  would   be
   unacceptable  in  the  context of one  system  may  accordingly  be
   justified  in  the  context of another, at least  so  long  as  the
   chosen  system provides for conditions which will ensure the  "free
   expression  of  the  opinion of the people in  the  choice  of  the
   legislature".
   
         B. Application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3)
                          in the instant case
   
       55.  The Court has to consider the applicants' complaints  from
   the point of view of Article 3 (P1-3) thus interpreted.
       56.  The  Government  pointed out that  nothing  prevented  the
   French-speaking  electors in the district of  Halle-Vilvoorde  from
   knowingly  voting for a candidate who was likewise  French-speaking
   but  willing to take his parliamentary oath in Dutch; once elected,
   such  a candidate would sit on the Flemish Council as of right  and
   represent his constituents.
       This  argument is not decisive. Admittedly, electors cannot  be
   defined  wholly in terms of their language and culture;  political,
   economic,  social, religious and philosophical considerations  also
   influence  their  votes.  Linguistic preferences,  however,  are  a
   major  factor  affecting the way citizens vote in  a  country  like
   Belgium,  especially in the case of the residents of a  "sensitive"
   area,  such as the municipalities on the outskirts of Brussels.  An
   elected  representative who took his parliamentary  oath  in  Dutch
   would  not  belong to the French-language group  in  the  House  of
   Representatives  or the Senate; and these groups, like  the  Dutch-
   language  groups, play an important role in those  areas  in  which
   the  Constitution  requires special majorities  (see  paragraph  17
   above).
       57.  The  1980  Special  Act,  however,  fits  into  a  general
   institutional   system  of  the  Belgian  State,   based   on   the
   territoriality principle. The system covers the administrative  and
   political  institutions and the distribution of their  powers.  The
   reform,  which  is  not  yet complete, is designed  to  achieve  an
   equilibrium  between  the Kingdom's various  regions  and  cultural
   communities  by means of a complex pattern of checks and  balances.
   The  aim  is  to  defuse the language disputes in  the  country  by
   establishing   more   stable   and   decentralised   organisational
   structures. This intention, which is legitimate in itself,  clearly
   emerges from the debates in the democratic national Parliament  and
   is  borne  out  by  the  massive majorities achieved  in  favour  -
   notably  - of the Special Act, including section 29 (see paragraphs
   22 and 31 above).
       In  any  consideration of the electoral system  in  issue,  its
   general  context must not be forgotten. The system does not  appear
   unreasonable if regard is had to the intentions it reflects and  to
   the  respondent State's margin of appreciation within  the  Belgian
   parliamentary  system - a margin that is all  the  greater  as  the
   system  is incomplete and provisional. One of the consequences  for
   the  linguistic  minorities is that they must vote  for  candidates
   willing  and  able to use the language of their region.  A  similar
   requirement  is found in the organisation of elections  in  a  good
   many  States.  Experience  shows that such  a  situation  does  not
   necessarily  threaten  the interests of  the  minorities.  This  is
   particularly  true, in respect of a system which makes  concessions
   to  the  territoriality principle, where the  political  and  legal
   order  provides safeguards against inopportune or arbitrary changes
   -  by requiring, for example, special majorities (see paragraph  17
   above).
       The French-speaking electors in the district of Halle-Vilvoorde
   enjoy the right to vote and the right to stand for election on  the
   same  legal footing as the Dutch-speaking electors. They are in  no
   way  deprived of these rights by the mere fact that they must  vote
   either  for  candidates  who will take the  parliamentary  oath  in
   French  and will accordingly join the French-language group in  the
   House  of  Representatives or the Senate  and  sit  on  the  French
   Community  Council, or else for candidates who will take  the  oath
   in  Dutch and so belong to the Dutch-language group in the House of
   Representatives or the Senate and sit on the Flemish Council.  This
   is  not  a  disproportionate limitation such as would  thwart  "the
   free  expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of  the
   legislature" (see paragraphs 51, 52 and 53 in fine above).
       The  Court  accordingly finds that there has been no breach  of
   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) taken alone.
   
                  II. Alleged violation of Article 14
            of the Convention taken together with Article 3
                   of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3)
   
       58.  Mrs. Mathieu-Mohin and Mr. Clerfayt also claimed to be the
   victims of a difference of treatment in comparison with the  Dutch-
   speaking  electors  and  elected  representatives  resident,   like
   themselves,  in  the  administrative district  of  Halle-Vilvoorde.
   This  difference of treatment - allegedly the result of  a  "policy
   of  assimilation" and a determination to carry through  a  "Flemish
   re-conquest" - was said to amount to discrimination on  grounds  of
   language  and  membership of a national minority and to  contravene
   Article  14  of  the Convention taken together with  Article  3  of
   Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
       59.  The arguments on which the claim just summarised rests are
   the  same  as  those  relied  on by the applicants  in  respect  of
   Article  3  of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) taken in isolation. The  Court
   accordingly  simply refers to the reasons for which it has  already
   rejected  those arguments (see paragraph 57 above).  Those  reasons
   make it clear that there is no "discrimination" prejudicial to  the
   applicants.
       No  breach of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention  has  been
   made out, therefore.
   
                     FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
   
       1.  Holds  by thirteen votes to five that there is no violation
   of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3), taken alone;
       2.  Holds  by fourteen votes to four that there is no violation
   of  Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3  of
   Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-3).
   
       Done  in  English  and  in French, and delivered  at  a  public
   hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 2 March 1987.
   
                                                  Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
                                                             President
   
                                           Signed: {Marc-Andre} EISSEN
                                                             Registrar
   
   
   
   
   
   
       In accordance with Article 51 з 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention
   and  Rule  52  з  2  of the Rules of Court, the following  separate
   opinions are annexed to this judgment:
       -  joint  dissenting opinion of Mr. Cremona, Mrs. Bindschedler-
   Robert,  Mr.  Bernhardt, Mr. Spielmann and Mr.  Valticos,  together
   with a declaration by Mr. Bernhardt;
       - concurring opinion of Mr. Pinheiro Farinha.
   
                                                     Initialled: R. R.
   
                                                  Initialled: M.-A. E.
   
              JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES CREMONA,
        BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, BERNHARDT, SPIELMANN AND VALTICOS
   
                             (Translation)
   
       To  our  regret  we  are unable to share  the  opinion  of  the
   majority  of  the  Court, since it appears to us that  in  law  the
   position  in  which the French-speaking electorate and the  French-
   speaking elected representatives of the administrative district  of
   Halle-Vilvoorde  are  placed  is  not  compatible  with   Belgium's
   obligations  under  Article 3 of Protocol  No.  1  (P1-3),  whether
   taken  by itself or together with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-3) of  the
   Convention.
       The  system  currently  in force in respect  of  that  district
   (which  as  an  administrative district comes  within  the  Flemish
   Region, while for electoral purposes - with different boundaries  -
   it  is  part of the electoral district of Brussels) has the  effect
   in  substance,  under  the Special Act of 8  August  1980  (section
   29(1)),  that the members of the House of Representatives  and  the
   Senate  elected in the district of Halle-Vilvoorde cannot, if  they
   take  the parliamentary oath in French, sit on the Flemish  Council
   (a   body  which  indisputably  has  legislative  powers)  and  are
   therefore unable to defend their Region's interests in a number  of
   important fields (such as regional planning, environment,  housing,
   economic   policy,   energy   and  employment),   whereas   elected
   representatives  who  take  the oath  in  Dutch  are  automatically
   members  of  the Flemish Council. Halle-Vilvoorde has a  population
   of  more than 100,000 French-speakers out of a total population  of
   more than 500,000, the average number of votes required to elect  a
   member  of  the  House of Representatives varying  from  22,000  to
   25,000.
       The  practical consequence is that unless they vote for  Dutch-
   speaking  candidates, the French-speaking voters in  this  district
   will not be represented on the Flemish Council.
       In  our  opinion, such a situation, excluding, as  it  does  in
   practice,  representation  of  the  French-speaking  electorate  of
   Halle-Vilvoorde  at  regional level,  does  not  ensure  "the  free
   expression  of  the  opinion of the people in  the  choice  of  the
   legislature" as stipulated in Article 3 of Protocol No.  1  (P1-3),
   and it creates a language-based distinction contrary to Article  14
   (art. 14) of the Convention.
       None of the reasons put forward to justify this incompatibility
   appears to us to be convincing.
       In the first place, it is true that the French-speakers elected
   in  Halle-Vilvoorde could belong to the (Flemish) regional  Council
   if  they  agreed  to  take the oath in Dutch. In that  eventuality,
   however,  the representatives concerned would lose their status  as
   French-speakers  in  Parliament, and this  -  in  addition  to  the
   psychological and moral aspect of the issue - would have  important
   political  consequences, given the role played by the parliamentary
   language groups.
       The   argument  based  on  the  fact  that  under  the  Belgian
   Constitution    elected   representatives   are    considered    as
   representatives of the whole nation is irrelevant in  the  case  of
   the  regional  Councils,  which are vested under  the  Constitution
   itself  with  the responsibility of watching over the interests  of
   the  Regions concerned and to which the elected representatives  of
   those Regions should therefore be entitled to belong.
       Nor  can  the  limitations in question be compared  with  those
   often  found  in  electoral  systems (such  as  those  inherent  in
   majority    systems    or   various   systems    of    proportional
   representation, or again in the fact that a minimum  percentage  of
   votes   is   sometimes  required  for  election).   These   various
   limitations  are general in nature and apply to all voters  without
   distinction,  whereas  the  system  applicable  to  Halle-Vilvoorde
   restricts the right of only the French-speaking voters and  elected
   representatives  of  the  Region, and on  the  sole  basis  of  the
   language criterion.
       It  was  also argued that despite its limitations, the position
   of   the   French-speaking  voters  of  Halle-Vilvoorde  was   more
   favourable  than that of the French-speaking voters in the  Flemish
   Region  in  general.  One of the specific features  of  the  Halle-
   Vilvoorde  district  is that it contains a large  concentration  of
   French-speaking  voters,  who  are  in  a  position  to   elect   a
   substantial number of candidates to Parliament. In any case,  apart
   from  the fact that the position of the other parts of the  Flemish
   Region  was not in issue in the instant case, a relative  advantage
   of  this  kind  cannot  compensate for the effective  loss  by  the
   French-speaking  voters of Halle-Vilvoorde of  their  right  to  be
   represented on the regional Council.
       It  has been pointed out that the current system was adopted in
   1980  by  a  very  large majority in both the  language  groups  in
   Parliament.  But this was by definition a transitional  stage,  and
   from  this point of view the argument is more an empirical one than
   a  legal  one  and is of very doubtful force. In our  opinion,  the
   system  should  be  assessed on its own  merits.  Furthermore,  the
   transitional nature of the current system was itself relied  on  in
   argument. This transitional state of affairs, however, has  already
   lasted  for over six years and, while a Study Centre for Reform  of
   the  State has indeed been set up, the Government has not indicated
   to  the  Court even an approximate date on which a permanent system
   might be adopted, let alone what kind of change might be made.
       Lastly,  it cannot be said that the state of affairs  submitted
   to  the  Court  represents  the only conceivable  solution  of  the
   problem;  indeed, the very fact that it is regarded as transitional
   indicates  that  other acceptable arrangements are contemplated  or
   are  at  least  not being ruled out. Merely by way of  example  and
   without in any way claiming to offer practical proposals (which  we
   are  not  qualified to do), one could imagine allowing the  various
   French-speaking  elected  representatives  of  the  Halle-Vilvoorde
   district  to belong to the Flemish Council even if they have  taken
   the  parliamentary oath in French - which does not  preclude  their
   speaking  Dutch  in  the  Flemish  Council.  Or  again,  one  might
   envisage  holding separate elections at regional level and national
   level,  on  the understanding that the representatives  elected  at
   regional  level would have to be able to be members of the relevant
   regional   Council.  But  obviously  it  is  for   the   Government
   themselves to find the best means of solving the problem.
       Falling back on the margin of appreciation is no answer in this
   case,  because that margin is subject to effective respect for  the
   rights protected in the Convention.
   
                    DECLARATION BY JUDGE BERNHARDT
   
       The  joint dissenting opinion sets out the reasons why I  voted
   in  favour  of finding a violation of Article 3 of Protocol  No.  1
   (P1-3).  On the other hand, I voted against finding a violation  of
   Article 14 of the Convention (taken together with Article 3 of  the
   Protocol)  (art.  14+P1-3),  since in my  view  no  separate  issue
   arises   under  this  heading.  It  is  the  exclusion  of  certain
   representatives   from   the   regional   Council   and   not   any
   discrimination which is decisive.
   
             CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA
   
                             (Translation)
   
       1.  I concurred in the result but, with all the respect due  to
   my  learned  brethren,  I must state that paragraph  51  causes  me
   great difficulty.
       2.  The problem of legislatures with two or more chambers  does
   not  arise  in the instant case, and the matter is not  before  the
   Court.  In  my  view, we should confine ourselves to  the  case  in
   issue  and  keep the question of two chambers for such time  as  it
   may arise in a case before the Court.
       3.  At  all  events, the wording "or at least  of  one  of  its
   chambers if it has two or more" is inadequate and dangerous.
       As  it stands, it would allow of a system at variance with "the
   opinion  of the people in the choice of the legislature" and  might
   even  lead to a corporative, elitist or class system which did  not
   respect democracy.
       In  my  opinion,  we  should say "or at least  of  one  of  its
   chambers if it has two or more, on the two-fold condition that  the
   majority  of the membership of the legislature is elected and  that
   the  chamber or chambers whose members are not elected does  or  do
   not have greater powers than the chamber that is freely elected  by
   secret ballot".
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости законодательства России


Тематические ресурсы

Новости сайта "Тюрьма"


Новости

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Сайт управляется системой uCoz